Obama’s Choice of Hillary Clinton Signals He’s Not Anti-War

The one aspect of the Obama campaign that was arguably laudable and comparatively better than the McCain campaign was Obama's skepticism of the Iraq War and his demands that the United States leave Iraq. However, when Barack Obama announced on December 1 that he would keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in place and appoint fellow Iraq hawk Senator Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Obama ended any rational hope that the United States would pursue a more non-interventionist foreign policy.

(Obama also announced the same day his nomination of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary, retired Marine General James L. Jones, Jr. as national security adviser, Eric H. Holder, Jr. as attorney general and Susan E. Rice as U.S. ambassador to the UN.)

The appointments mark a stark turn from Obama's position early in his career.

But Obama continued to speak out against the Iraq occupation after becoming a U.S. senator. Only after establishing his apparent bona fides as the peace candidate did Obama begin to equivocate on Iraq.

The late Tim Russert asked Obama in a September 26, 2007 Democratic presidential debate: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" Obama declined to commit to ending the war during the presidential term he was seeking, saying: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible."

The prospect of five-and-a-half years of more war in Iraq should have thrown cold water on the hopes of the peace movement — conservative or liberal. After all, he had just conceded he might continue the war he once called "dumb" for the indefinite future.

But during the campaign, Obama remained the comparative peace candidate (by outward appearances, anyway), and Hillary Clinton stood as the candidate who called for another four years of the disastrous Bush administration foreign policy. Clinton didn't explain it in so many words, of course, but that's essentially what it was.

The November election contest was likewise one between a candidate who advocated a Republican big-government domestic policy (borrow and spend) and a Bush-style war policy versus a Democratic big-government domestic policy (tax and spend) and a peace platform.

Voters chose the person they perceived to be the peace candidate in both the primary and general elections. But Obama's cabinet picks on December 1 signaled that Americans are getting a war president. Obama stated that he had said during the campaign that he would remove "combat" troops from Iraq within 16 months but that it is "likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force." He added that "it's also critical that we recognize that the situation in Afghanistan has been worsening" — a theater where he wants to send more troops.

"On the broad core vision of where America needs to go," he stressed regarding his views and Hillary Clinton's, "we are in almost complete agreement."

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.